police stop man for open carrying (vid)

This is a discussion on police stop man for open carrying (vid) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Point is - the encounter should never have occurred, that in itself is harassment. Doing it the oc'ers way only took 3 min in spite ...

Point is - the encounter should never have occurred, that in itself is harassment. Doing it the oc'ers way only took 3 min in spite of the officer's ignorance and arrogance.

Asking for ID 4x when the person is not required to present it and has repeatedly refused is harassment. Are you that patient with someone you suspect of DUI? Why is declining to provide a name/ID when it is not required not a reasonable response? - apparently the legislature and courts think it is. If you're going to claim politeness - that stopped with the improper stop. If it wasn't improper, why was the LEO's interview shut down as soon as the supervisor was on scene?

The only reasonable expectation in the encounter was the oc'er expecting not to be stopped b/c of other's ignorance (especially LEO) and expecting to not have a loaded gun pointed at him.

Open carry is a relatively new thing in a lot of places. There will be a learning curve by both open carriers and the cops in learning to deal with it.

One would think that the transition wouldn't be as difficult in some places as it is. We are bombarded with videos of of idiots on both sides. Open carriers with chips on their shoulders trying to prove their manhood and cops with chips on their shoulders and when the two get together its never a good thing. When that happens, we get videos of both sides posturing like two banty roosters about to fight and the videos are never flattering to either side.

If the two sides would co operate just a bit and use common sense, (yeah I know that it's about extinct now) things would be so much better for both sides. The cops would learn that just because someone is carrying a gun and walking down the sidewalk doesn't mean that it is really worth stopping someone over as it is a legal activity. At some point in time, they will learn just to drive slowly by, observe for a minute or two and then drive on by.

Some of the people wearing guns pride themselves in causing a controversy just because they can and most of them are skinny little punks who's voices haven't even changed yet or fat young men with physiques so soft that you could drop an apple anywhere on their body and never see it again. They pretend to be lawyers because they read somewhere on the Internet that they can do this and they can do that and they are stupid enough to believe everything they read on hear on the net because they don't know any better.

Just to make it clear to the armchair commando's that know everything there is to policing from watching various videos on You Tube, I don't really care if you are toting or not. Do what you want to do, if you want to carry openly so be it. You don't have to turn into an instant ***** just because a cop walks up to you and asks you what you are up to. Like everywhere else, just a little bit of courtesy go's a long way here. If its a legal activity where you live, then your fear about being harassed will only be realized when you play stupid and refuse to answer even a simple question like you first name. I mean really? Are you that scared of the Police that you lose all sense of decency?

These videos are shown and the the usual crop of fools show up just to bash all things cop and they are convinced that because of the actions of a few cops that they see on the Internet, they figure that are cops are like that and they haven't come to the realization that these encounters probably happen hundreds of times a day and the result is that they are too boring and routine to put on the tube, that only the ones that cause controversy are the ones that they see. Its been happening a lot lately and I personally am getting tired enough of it that if they are posted just to denigrate,bash and talk trash then they will disappear, cast out into cyberspace never to be seen again because they really serve no good purpose.

To answer your question about stopping someone that was open carrying here, well, it isn't legal here so that's really not an issue.
If a guy is open carrying, yes I will stop and ask what the deal is and go from there...because that is what I get paid to do...ask questions and make the determination if what is happening is good or bad.

I've met a lot of cops outside of their doing their duty and can't remember any that acted like an ass in that environment - they were good guys. I'm really not meaning to bash all cops. As you said "The cops would learn that just because someone is carrying a gun and walking down the sidewalk doesn't mean that it is really worth stopping someone over as it is a legal activity. At some point in time, they will learn just to drive slowly by, observe for a minute or two and then drive on by." I don't see what is so hard about the concept so I admittedly don't have much patience with it. I agree that some of the oc'ers are obnoxious, but they are putting themselves at risk to make a point to LEO that "upper management" has failed to make. If "upper management" refuses to train, then how else do the guys on the street learn except being repeatedly exposed to it and then being shut down by a citizen that is in the right. Here in KC when OC was allowed the LEO's in charge made it crystal clear that people oc'ing were within their rights, know their rights, and they were to be left alone. There were no problems.

There are two important things here, 1) when cops learn this, all the issues go away - on both sides (cops cease stopping citizens and citizens have nothing to complain about) and 2) every encounter is started by a cop. The way I see it, the ball is entirely in LEO's court.

Alot of good points are being made here irrespective of liking or disliking these types of videos that are being posted. Its within a forum's right to cast a topic or video off into cyberspace but it doesn't make the issue go away, it doesn't stop videos from being posted elsewhere and viewed by anyone that can hit a search button. The validity of an argument is often neutered by the very person making the point whenever its obvious that they are acting out of hate. Hate goes both ways. You can be a cop basher and made ignorant of what its like to be in their shoes because your hate can't allow you to see past anything beyond your own narcism. You can go to the other extreme and be dismissive about violating people's rights because you want to sympathize with LEO to the point that you become a pragmatist.

Its what's in a man's heart that makes him good, not a badge. The badge gives him responsibility and makes him a servant and LEOs should never forget this fact. At the same time, however, a man's not intrinsically a bad person because he's a LEO. Its not true that all LEOs are in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to strip you of your rights. Most, I would imagine, are trying to get through a day with no serious issues and enjoy their evenings with their families. LEOs are put into a tough spot on a daily basis and we should always sympathize with their plight.

I agree with others that say it is the LEO that is in charge of the call. I've watched these kinds of videos before and admit I haven't studied these laws so I'm still learning about this topic myself. From what I gather, however, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress, is about to happen or has happened in order to detain someone/a citizen. I'm also under the impression that its within a person's right to deny the presentation of their ID if the prior contingency has not been met. I do believe that alot of interviews would be cut short if the person being stopped would simply provide their ID. It seems like a harmless request but if the guy is acting within his rights who am I to say what rights he should insist on and which rights he should voluntarily give up? I think its naive to believe that these encounters are going to knock you out of OCing in your state. You're going to be knocked out of your right to OC because of a political agenda that will exist if these videos are posted or if these videos never see the light of day. I for one am grateful for these videos because I see them as learning tools. The good ones show you how you should act and the bad ones show you how you should't act.

I believe some LEOs are stopping OC'ers out of ignorance and they simply don't know the laws. They believe the very presence of a gun gives them a right to stop and interview someone when in fact, it doesn't give them probable cause. I also believe, however, that there is a political agenda and biased beliefs that fuel some motives. If a LEO is stopping someone in an attempt to curtail their behavior then this is wrong and I don't care how you try to spin it, paint it up or how big the smile is on your face when you articulate your rhetoric. Harassment used as a tool to modify behavior is outside of a LEOs pay grade. Its not his job to get you to conform to a PC agenda, he should be enforcing the laws that are on the books. If the laws on the books are bad, we shouldn't fight LEO, we should do our part to get said laws changed.

A right that is not exercised is a right that is lost. Its cliche but something I believe to be true, nevertheless.

Probable Cause and reasonable suspicion are vastly different standards, the two terms are not interchangeable. That said, the standard we used in school for LE was that Terry stops are based upon reasonable suspicion that someone may be "armed."

Terry frisks (based on the reasonable suspicion of the police officer) may not be overly invasive, it is not an in-custody search. It is a quick stop and frisk to search for weapons that may be dangerous to you as an officer. An Armed individual, refusing to provide ID would "probably" meet the reasonable suspicion standard for "many" cops.

Probable cause is a significantly higher standard, which would have to be met to make an actual arrest.

Pleading the 5th amendment only works if you would be self incriminating. For any sort of a non-citizen initiated contact, police are going to, and should ask for identification. They also would have been justified in conducting a Terry Frisk (Reasonable Police Officer believes the person may be in the possession of a dangerous weapon), unless that doesn't apply in that particular state. It's easy to articulate that person with a gun openly displayed may be concealing other weapons. Thus to conduct said frisk, they would have every right to temporarily detain the individual, and verify his identity. Terry V. Ohio specifically relates to balancing a temporary detainment versus the public safety. Again, unless there is state statute that would supercede accepted case law, the police had every right to stop, detain and identify the individual.

Oh by the way, case law has found that the 5th amendment doesn't apply to refusing to identify yourself. (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada). If the police have reasonable suspicion, which could be articulated by the openly displayed firearm, they can detain and identify you.

So you want us to live in Soviet-style America, "papers please..." Police can ask for identification anytime, but you are only obliged to identify yourself if it is part of a lawful request on the part of the officer (e.g., you are suspected of committing a crime).

Also, in the majority of states, case law supports the fact that the mere open carry of a firearm is not reasonable suspicion.

Do you think that police are allowed to stop everyone driving a car because someone may be an unlicensed driver?

I particularly agree with #3. Stop sending cops out to reports of legal activity and a lot of these confrontations would never happen (and the cops would be freed up to respond to illegal activity, you know, just as a bonus).

So how do you determine the difference between the two people? What if they got a call about a man...or woman walking down the street with a gun...did not respond...and they killed 5 people? The only way they can determine if you are hostile or not is to stop you and ask a few question. If that is what it takes to keep the streets safe and people from getting killed...what is the big deal? You think your rights are violated by being stopped...what about innocent people who are shot everyday? What about their rights? If I OC and get stopped for identification....no big deal. You make yourself look suspicious by refusing to show ID.....JMO.

So how do you determine the difference between the two people? What if they got a call about a man...or woman walking down the street with a gun...did not respond...and they killed 5 people? The only way they can determine if you are hostile or not is to stop you and ask a few question. If that is what it takes to keep the streets safe and people from getting killed...what is the big deal? You think your rights are violated by being stopped...what about innocent people who are shot everyday? What about their rights? If I OC and get stopped for identification....no big deal. You make yourself look suspicious by refusing to show ID.....JMO.

Talking to someone is not harassment.Interviewing someone is not harassement. Expecting a reasonable response is not harassment. Taking a gun from someone that refuses to answer a simple question is not illegal seizure of property.

What could have been a simple 5 minute encounter was complicated by a complete and total lack of common sense.

What if I don't have 5 minutes to waste with the questions that shouldn't be asked?
You are getting paid for those 5 minutes, am I?

Are you actually saying that the cop pointing the guys own gun at him because he didn't answer a simple question (ya know the one he didn't have to answer) is OK with you.

In the first 1:05 of the video, the cop asked for the OCers ID 3 times.
This is a copy and paste from the Merriam Webster dictionary. Look at 1B and 2, would it be safe to say that the dictionary definition of harassment is what happened in the first 1:10 of the video?

Main Entry:harass
Pronunciation:h*-*ras, *har-*s
Function:transitive verb
Etymology:French harasser, from Middle French, from harer to set a dog on, from Old French hare, interj. used to incite dogs, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German hier here more at HERE
Date:1617
1 a : EXHAUST, FATIGUE b : to annoy persistently
2 : to worry and impede by repeated raids *harassed the enemy*
synonyms see WORRY
–harasser noun
–harassment \-m*nt\ noun

A reasonable response was given at 34 seconds into the video. The question is reasonable to who? The OCer said "that is not illegal can I have my gun and leave" seems reasonable to me as the cop had seen nothing illegal happening, and demanding ID simply because a person is OCing is illegal in most areas. If I am not mistaken once the cop "asked" for ID and the guy said no and wanted to leave, does it not then become "demanding" ID at that point?

I know we are in different parts of the country so if the laws in your area are different please accept my apologies in advance, where I live what the cop in the video did is wrong on numerous levels.

So how do you determine the difference between the two people? What if they got a call about a man...or woman walking down the street with a gun...did not respond...and they killed 5 people? The only way they can determine if you are hostile or not is to stop you and ask a few question. If that is what it takes to keep the streets safe and people from getting killed...what is the big deal? You think your rights are violated by being stopped...what about innocent people who are shot everyday? What about their rights? If I OC and get stopped for identification....no big deal. You make yourself look suspicious by refusing to show ID.....JMO.

Can you say with absolute certainty that a cop has never ID somebody only to later harass them at their home?
I believe there are a few threads on this forum of that happening in the last year or 2.

If I am on a 30 minute lunch break and doing nothing illegal, you are saying it is OK to waste 5 minutes of that time so a cop feels better?

Open carry is a relatively new thing in a lot of places. There will be a learning curve by both open carriers and the cops in learning to deal with it.

One would think that the transition wouldn't be as difficult in some places as it is. We are bombarded with videos of of idiots on both sides. Open carriers with chips on their shoulders trying to prove their manhood and cops with chips on their shoulders and when the two get together its never a good thing. When that happens, we get videos of both sides posturing like two banty roosters about to fight and the videos are never flattering to either side.

If the two sides would co operate just a bit and use common sense, (yeah I know that it's about extinct now) things would be so much better for both sides. The cops would learn that just because someone is carrying a gun and walking down the sidewalk doesn't mean that it is really worth stopping someone over as it is a legal activity. At some point in time, they will learn just to drive slowly by, observe for a minute or two and then drive on by.

Some of the people wearing guns pride themselves in causing a controversy just because they can and most of them are skinny little punks who's voices haven't even changed yet or fat young men with physiques so soft that you could drop an apple anywhere on their body and never see it again. They pretend to be lawyers because they read somewhere on the Internet that they can do this and they can do that and they are stupid enough to believe everything they read on hear on the net because they don't know any better.

I'm with you 100% up to here.

Originally Posted by HotGuns

Just to make it clear to the armchair commando's that know everything there is to policing from watching various videos on You Tube, I don't really care if you are toting or not. Do what you want to do, if you want to carry openly so be it. You don't have to turn into an instant ***** just because a cop walks up to you and asks you what you are up to. Like everywhere else, just a little bit of courtesy go's a long way here. If its a legal activity where you live, then your fear about being harassed will only be realized when you play stupid and refuse to answer even a simple question like you first name. I mean really? Are you that scared of the Police that you lose all sense of decency?

These videos are shown and the the usual crop of fools show up just to bash all things cop and they are convinced that because of the actions of a few cops that they see on the Internet, they figure that are cops are like that and they haven't come to the realization that these encounters probably happen hundreds of times a day and the result is that they are too boring and routine to put on the tube, that only the ones that cause controversy are the ones that they see. Its been happening a lot lately and I personally am getting tired enough of it that if they are posted just to denigrate,bash and talk trash then they will disappear, cast out into cyberspace never to be seen again because they really serve no good purpose.

A few things to note. To be clear I am on a first name basis with a couple of my local police through church and I do not behave like the OCer in this video. However I can understand the OCers frustration at being repeatedly stopped by the same PD over and over. He was arrested once (charges dropped) and stopped three or four other times since then. If I were in his shoes I would be polite with officers the first couple times but I would soon grow weary of being stopped. By the time we got to stop 3 or 4 I'd be pretty upset.

Originally Posted by BWillis57

Probable Cause and reasonable suspicion are vastly different standards, the two terms are not interchangeable. That said, the standard we used in school for LE was that Terry stops are based upon reasonable suspicion that someone may be "armed."

Terry frisks (based on the reasonable suspicion of the police officer) may not be overly invasive, it is not an in-custody search. It is a quick stop and frisk to search for weapons that may be dangerous to you as an officer. An Armed individual, refusing to provide ID would "probably" meet the reasonable suspicion standard for "many" cops.

Probable cause is a significantly higher standard, which would have to be met to make an actual arrest.

Except that I've already alerted you to the ruling that says it isn't.

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent

Pleading the 5th amendment only works if you would be self incriminating. For any sort of a non-citizen initiated contact, police are going to, and should ask for identification. They also would have been justified in conducting a Terry Frisk (Reasonable Police Officer believes the person may be in the possession of a dangerous weapon), unless that doesn't apply in that particular state. It's easy to articulate that person with a gun openly displayed may be concealing other weapons. Thus to conduct said frisk, they would have every right to temporarily detain the individual, and verify his identity. Terry V. Ohio specifically relates to balancing a temporary detainment versus the public safety. Again, unless there is state statute that would supercede accepted case law, the police had every right to stop, detain and identify the individual.

Oh by the way, case law has found that the 5th amendment doesn't apply to refusing to identify yourself. (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada). If the police have reasonable suspicion, which could be articulated by the openly displayed firearm, they can detain and identify you.

You forget that the mere possession of a firearm is not grounds for a stop. Deberry vs US. There must be RAS of a crime. A legally carried and properly holstered firearm does not make a person fit the criteria "may be armed and presently dangerous." Without that a Terry Frisk is inadmissible. Also there are many states that are not stop and id required. Even the ones that are the requirement is met by merely stating your name and no id is required.

So how do you determine the difference between the two people? What if they got a call about a man...or woman walking down the street with a gun...did not respond...and they killed 5 people? The only way they can determine if you are hostile or not is to stop you and ask a few question. If that is what it takes to keep the streets safe and people from getting killed...what is the big deal? You think your rights are violated by being stopped...what about innocent people who are shot everyday? What about their rights? If I OC and get stopped for identification....no big deal. You make yourself look suspicious by refusing to show ID.....JMO.

The 911 operator asks "What is this man with a gun doing?" to the caller. If the answer is "Walking down the street with a gun in a holster." then the operator explains that open carry is legal (I mean assuming it is in whatever location this is happening, of course). I seriously don't follow your logic that the police should respond just because there is a gun involved if it is legal to open carry. Cars are just as likely to kill people, but the police can't respond to every "Man with a car" call... there has to be some sort of action with the potential deadly weapon (be it gun, car, baseball bat, what-have-you) that elicits a police response. JMO.

A few things to note. To be clear I am on a first name basis with a couple of my local police through church and I do not behave like the OCer in this video. However I can understand the OCers frustration at being repeatedly stopped by the same PD over and over. He was arrested once (charges dropped) and stopped three or four other times since then. If I were in his shoes I would be polite with officers the first couple times but I would soon grow weary of being stopped. By the time we got to stop 3 or 4 I'd be pretty upset.

Me too.

On the other hand, if I was getting stopped and intereviewed only a daily basis, I might just change the behavior that is causing it.

Its not a perfect solution but at least I wouldn't get my blood pressure raised by a cop driving by.

And, as much as I hate to admit it, when new laws come into existence, it could take a long time for the Cops to be made aware of it and for their behavior to change accordingly. That I know for a fact because I have instructed several depts. on CHL here in Arkansas at various times.

When all they know is what they are taught from the Academy that any call to a MWAG could be their last, and in some citys the presence of a gun is absolutley evil,
then they hear from some half wit of a Chief to check everyone no matter what, it can be confusing and some of them just dont know how to act. Since the abscense of Common Sense has almost been achieved, its only going to get worse.

The 911 operator asks "What is this man with a gun doing?" to the caller. If the answer is "Walking down the street with a gun in a holster." then the operator explains that open carry is legal (I mean assuming it is in whatever location this is happening, of course). I seriously don't follow your logic that the police should respond just because there is a gun involved if it is legal to open carry. Cars are just as likely to kill people, but the police can't respond to every "Man with a car" call... there has to be some sort of action with the potential deadly weapon (be it gun, car, baseball bat, what-have-you) that elicits a police response. JMO.

The call in and of itself elicits a police response. I understand your point about the dispatcher, but thats not going to happen. In my location, the officers have been trained on how to deal with OCers, and for the most part, they get it right.